Can you speak to the $5,000 number? I may be misunderstanding, as in May / June the price of ARB was around $1. So I’m a little confused on:
- How you got paid 2,500 ARB worth $1,000 when the price was $1 (so $2,500)
- Where the $5,000 ($2 ARB) is coming from.
I’m sympathetic to the situation, but I do partly agree (more on that below) with the notion that getting paid in ARB tokens, not USD, comes with some risk of price appreciation / deprecation. As in, if you did the work in January / February but were not getting paid (in ARB) until post program there should be an acceptance that the price will be different then the actual January / February price. So I would say this — if the value is based on the project’s completion in say February, I’d disagree with using $2 cost basis. This is also doubly unfair to those projects who got paid out in May / June, as they would have been paid out at $1 but these 5 are getting it at $2.
However… I am open to the idea that if most projects were paid at the $1 an ARB price its unfair to punish other projects getting paid out at $0.50. That is assuming (and hopefully someone can answer) these 5 projects delays in payments were due to issues with KYC that were beyond their control. I understand there is a balance between trying to pay everyone out at once and having a few KYC holdouts delaying everyone else, but in those cases I’d contend those failing to KYC should be ‘punished’. Not the people who complied. Basically - set a KYC deadline and if 9/10 are there then 9/10 get paid. the other 1 is then at their own risk. That does not seem to be the case here, and I’m still confused why all these projects were getting paid at random times with random amounts. and why some KYC took so much longer then others (again, assuming full cooperation by the KYC’d entities giving data timely)
Regardless, as a broader DAO discussion something needs to be figured out with how KYC is handled and how payments are made. I’ve now personally (and I say this as I’d imagine this is affecting a lot of people if it’s affected myself 3 times already…) experienced 3 instances where some combination of the KYC process / project manager process has delayed getting me funds at the promised time. To the point I’d argue it’s at a detriment to Arbitrum / the DAO’s reputation. So as someone being paid in tokens I’m fully aware of the price fluctuation risks, but I do have to push back on the notion expressed by others that these entities should have accepted that there was currency risk here. The currency risk is acceptable IMO when it’s a situation of doing the work in January, but knowing you won’t be paid until February. However, the currency risk is NOT acceptable IMO if it’s a situation of where you do the work in January, are promised to be paid in February, but don’t get paid until March.